Home › Site Reviews
 

iStockphoto

Review By Steve Gibson
Written 11 April 2008
Updated 22 January 2012

Visit iStockphoto
Our Review: 

The first and at one time largest of the microstock libraries. Now part of the Getty images empire. Since 2003 we have watched the cost of photos steadily rise (good news for photographers), gone are the days when you could get a good usable image for $1, they introduced XSmall images and in effect the cost of an image tripled overnight. In early 2010 exclusive images doubled in price making istockphoto very attractive to those who are willing to tie their images to just one agency.

Overall the site is still popular among buyers having an almost cult following, if difficult to get images accepted; you should include iStockPhoto in your portfolio. Don't lose any sleep if as a non exclusive you earn less on this site than on some of the other smaller sites. I have seen reasonable returns throughout last year (2011) despite changes search that place non exclusives like me at a serious disadvantage

 

The Killer Search

istock cotrolled vocabulary

From all the work that goes into disambiguation of uploads istockphoto should have pretty much the best search technology ever seen at a microstock agency. Sadly as of 2011 the implementation leaves a lot to be disired and it's clear that some other financial or business concerns are seriously eroding the quality of search results. The search tecchnology used It makes it slightly more difficult to upload to as you have clarify the meaning of your keywords. for example include a keyword 'orange' and you will be asked to tick one of two boxes Orange (Descriptive Colour) or Orange (Citrus Fruit), or perhaps you include the keyword 'lead' the response will be Lead (Metal), Dog Lead (Pet Equipment), Leading (Moving Activity), Graphite (Material) etc and the list goes on for 1000's of different ambiguous words in the English language. This really is cool stuff, as an image purchaser trying to clarify exactly what sort of image you want using words is a difficult business and this helps significantly.

 

Exclusive Photographer? istock exclusive icon

A big decision for any photographer to make. Becoming exclusive with istock will mean that you cannot upload images to any other site. I can't comment on what its like to be exclusive as i have no experience, many people swear by it. exclusive photographers get a larger percentage per image purchase, and also receive 'care' from the site - istock will chase people who use your images in breach of the license on your behalf. You will also come across 'Exclusive+' which allows exclusive photographers to nominate a small ammount of their images for sale at a higher price.

The top exclusive photographers also get to sell their images via getty's image network (including photodisk) increasing sales potential dramatically.

 

Audio, Video, Ilustration, Music, Flash, Logos... istockphoto icons

Along with several other agencies istockphoto also accept video and vector illustrations. They have recently launched their new audio library 'istockaudio'. Even if you only contribute photographs to istock it's important to consider that buyers may find istock a convenient one-stop-shop for all their media needs, and these buyers will be your potential customers.

It's true that at present many buyers are only in the market for images, but demand for video is growing fast and commission rates are higher. I can see one recipe for success in this emerging market is having quality video with matching print resolution images, hence designers can create matching online video and web/print campaigns; perhaps even just the option to go back and download matching images if they become needed will be enough to make your video work stand out.

 

istock Tips istock gold film can

Uploading

Istock is the only major microstock site that does not support FTP/SFTP upload. There are a couple of work-arounds for this. Firstly there is the istock image manager available for download from their site (istockphoto.com/ws_client_intro.php). The second option is to use picworkflow or similar upload assistant to submit images but make sure you log into istockphoto and set those categories and keywords once the upload is done. The third option is a simple time saver: bookmark the page that is shown when you have clicked “upload > image type” (the one with a browse button) put the bookmark in a shortcut bar in your browser, then once you have logged in you can click it and save yourself a couple of clicks and page loads for every image you want to upload i.e. just click that shortcut when you receive the upload confirmation page and you are ready for another image.

Promotion

I stock has a several useful features you can use to increase your sales. First up you can embed simple html into your image descriptions, these can be used to direct potential buyers to other images that you have uploaded that match the image, i.e. those in the same series or of a matching theme. You could also create a small banner for a public lightbox and link to that from the image description (that way the code is the same for each of the related images). You can see in the example below the photographer has linked to several related images in the description:

image description example

Another useful promotion tip is to either create a couple of ‘visual blog posts’ in your personal istock blog that link to either a lightbox or some recent images. Other similar options might just be including thumbnails to a select number of your favorites. Either the blog tab or the profile tab (if you have not created any blog posts) is displayed to visitors when they arrive on your profile page – this is the place to sell yourself. Buyers are interested in the quality (both technical and artistic) and choice of images you have, try to emphasize those as key selling points.

istock profile example

Public Lightboxes, as already mentioned above, these are a great way of showcasing a range of at least 20 of your images that feature related subjects or styles. These are a great targeted landing page for you to link to from somewhere else online (twitter, blog, website etc). External Resource: Impact of using lightboxes (via microstocks.wordpress.com)

 

Conclusion

Despite my criticisms of this site, the low commission level (recently dropped to 15% for non exclusives, compared to previous levels of about 28% - note: commissions increase with sales), restrictions on the number of images that can be submitted (for full time microstockers istock is quite restrictive) the fact that it has fallen from the #1 spot, tedious keywording process etc, I still recommend istockphoto as one of the top four earning microstock agencies. The microstock market moves and changes all the time.

August 2010: I stock announce that they payout over 1.7 million dollars every week to their contributing artists.

(as It appears I will take a pay cut of upto 50-70% at istockphoto this year, 2012 will be somewhat of a watershead, but I'm not making any judgements until the results are in.)

istockphoto

Visit istockphoto

 

Site Details
Media Types (in addition to RF Images): 
This site accepts editorial images
This site accepts video footage
This site accepts vector illustrations
(sort by agency)
Real US$ Cost of 1 Standard Image: 
9 (compare prices)
Referral Scheme: 
YES : Moving Goal Posts, previously only paid for recruiting a new photographer who earns at least $100, now one off $20, 20 credits or 20% of first purchase for recruiting a new buyer who purchases a minimum package in 30 days. (this offer replaces a dreadful $10 flat referral fee offered before Nov 2011) (compare rates)
Exclusivity Options Available: 
Exclusive Contributor (compare)
Cost of a standard image (1600x1200) 2MP approx: 
6 Credits
Commission Level: 
15% for non exclusive up to 20% depending on previous years sales. Exclusive members (25% to 45%) and double image sale price. (compare)
Cost of 1 Credit (basic): 
$ 1.5
FTP Upload: 
Not Available
Subscriptions: 

Multiple Combinations of Downloads (10/30-480), Length of Subscription (3,6,12 month), Credit based not per image, allows download of video, flash and vectors at relevant credit level.
3 Month: 30 credits/day $979
Annual: 10 credits/day $1299
Annual: 60 credits/day $6730
(corporate accounts have separate price structure)

(compare subscriptions)
API: 
Search: XML (Details: istockphoto.com/webservices/xmlrpc_doc) (list all)
Site Statistics
Approx. size of photo collection (0 = no current estimate): 
9,400,000 Images (compare)
Alexa Traffic Rank: 
514 (a measure of the site popularity, lower number is better)
Alexa 3 Month Change: 
-5% (measurement of the increase of site popularity compared with three months ago, negative is a decrease)
Community
Facebook: 
fan page link (list all)
Twitter: 
@istock (list all)
Photographers: 
38000
istockcharts.de
Overall Rating: 
8/10 (compare sites)
Bookmark/Search this post with
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Yahoo

13 Comments
Ronnie Hall's picture

is it still possible for amateurs to join?

Ronnie Hall (not verified) on Tue, 11/10/2009 - 11:26
I am getting a complete blank on my applications to join istockphoto, even though I am confident that my photos meet their criteria and are as good as some photos already on the site. I have been rejected four times now - and the third time there was no comment on criteria, simply that the photos were not 'diverse' enough! I have the distinct feeling that nothing I submit will be accepted, and that the bar has been raised, but I do not know how to find out if this is the case. Any ideas?
Jab's picture

Certainly not a top 10 agency

Jab (not verified) on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 16:58
Istock is certainly not a top 10 agency for may reasons: 1. Poor to very poor interface (compared to Dreamstime and other Fotolia for instance). 2. Complicated and long upload & keywording process 3. Support almost nonexistent (it looks like it's actually a server that does the support, not human beings). But worst of all, their website's application is full of bugs. Try to upload image for review and right after send a message to support, you will automatically receive a rejection message (from the server) for your images (minutes after, meaning that no editor has had time to review it). Again, is there a pilot in the plane or is it a conscious policy to reject automatically new photographs ? And don't dare to ask for explanations when the same images have been accepted everywhere else... istock, when arrogance meets a very poor service...
Steve Gibson's picture

Not quite sure how this

Steve Gibson on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 23:59

Not quite sure how this comment fits into the middle of the thread about joining, but with the sales figures as they are there is no way, no matter how much you dislike it, that it is not a top 5. They definitely belong up there, measured on sales, images, contributors and any other metric I can think of - including photographer ire.

I have to side with you on the issues after F5, it's was all decidedly shaky with broken links, ophaned pages etc, and dodgy search for several days most of that is sorted now?

no website that big is ever perfect, especially in those dark corners. Poor interface? - well Controlled vocab often gets peoples back up because, well, yes it's tedious at first until you learn the way it works. (personally I didn't like the new search at all).

Steve Gibson's picture

Joining

Steve Gibson on Wed, 11/11/2009 - 01:58
Im guessing you have read http://microstockinsider.com/guides/photographer-application-process-get... Is istock the first site you have joined? Yes amateurs can join and still have their work accepted, but in this respect I'm talking about amateurs at stock photography/learning stock, not an amateur photographer who wants to make money from a photo of a sunset or family cat. - so no photos of flowers, pets, motion blurs or skies, even if you see something similar on the site already, try to be conceptual and play safe with the initial submission.    
Henri Faure's picture

Bad

Henri Faure (not verified) on Tue, 11/17/2009 - 13:04
Do not send photos to iStockphoto. It is no longer the most powerful in terms of sales, indeed Fotolia and Dreamstime can do better. I have been contributor in iStock since November 2007. At the beginning all was at its best, I uploaded lots of photos and my sales increased. Then I became exclusive and my sales kept growing from 80 files per month to 120 in January 2009. But on February 17th, my sales dropped from an average of 5/day to less than 1 per day. Since then I could not sell more than 2 files peer day and last week was dreadful with only 8 files sold. I worked hard to upload 500 files - in fact 1000 because 50% files are rejected - and when I began to earn some money, they threw me by the window. Impossible to know why my sales dropped in one night. The support says that its because the quality of other contributors has increased, but if you look at the database, you dont see a significant quality increase and anyway the quality on the files could not increase 10 fold in one single night, on February 17th. What they did with me. They used my files to draw traffic via Google paying me only 25% of the price and when I could earn some money they pushed my sales down. In iStock there are some happy few who sell 300 files a day or more and earn several thousand Dollars per month. These contributors are protected and most customers are directed to these contributors. The new ones see their best files rejected when the risk to compete with those of the happy few, I was here only to make volume and to attract people from the net. Other contributors took the money and iStock make fantastic profits without any risk.
Steve Gibson's picture

don't don't

Steve Gibson on Wed, 11/18/2009 - 02:47
I think we've known for a while that istock has been loosing ground to others considering they were once the biggest. Each agnecy has its quirks that photographers love to hate. I do think it's way to far to suggest its not a good place to upload, they are still one of the big 5 and still recommended. Sounds like you were a victim of their 'best match' changes which chooses which image to display based on all sorts of 'secret sauce' criteria. all agencies do it or their search results would be full of spammed keywords. Perhaps you had a good run of sales before, lots of people felt the new system was a lot more fair - including myself with just a very marginal increase on more popular images, stopping what seemed to be a downward trend
Alistair Shankie's picture

Exclusive Contributors

Alistair Shankie (not verified) on Sun, 01/10/2010 - 19:00
We still need to deliver useful stock week in week out.Some contributors take there eye of the ball and some even fall ill with a new disease.C.V.M... creative vetta madness.Like they have taken some adobe steroid and pumped up the volume and effort in post processing.They sit in front of there PC's for hours and hours straining to get ever detail from the shadows and generally wasting there precious time as no f##### can afford to buy them !.. Henri,go back to basics.Simple images with copyspace for print.
Anonymous's picture

Used to be good, now the pits!

Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 09/15/2010 - 14:57
This site has been raising prices and lowering commissions to its contributors since being purchased by Getty in 2006. It no longer represents good value to either image shoppers or photographers selling work, offering commissions as low as 15%, the worst by far in the industry. Do the artists a favour and buy their work from elsewhere!
Heater's picture

iStock - not again, not ever...

Heater (not verified) on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 06:25
iStock was once the place to be, but since they nearly halved their commissions to contributors in late 2010 they are to be avoided like the plague. Don't waste your time contributing, it's a pain, they reject perfectly good images for arbitrary reasons, the forums are teeming with rabid fanboys, and they have no reason to keep commissions where they are since most people took the last pay cut. Not me, I'm outta here...
Alex's picture

istockphoto search is no

Alex (not verified) on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 22:18
istockphoto search is no longer the best. It ignores good matches in favor of higher priced items and changes randomly so often it is impossible to use it in a consistent manner. Anyway, there is no option to exclude their higher priced collections from a search - so istockphoto is really a $30+ per photo agency these days, I'd argue that takes it out of the 'microstock' range and into some intermediate area. As a buyer I still have a bias towards it, having used the site for so long, but frankly I use it as a last resort these days.
Steve Gibson's picture

istock search

Steve Gibson on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 04:52

I hear you alax, I've already been fairly vocal over the past few years about how the search at istock has been gradually whittled at until its become (as of 2011 for me) unusable. the results are indeed a mine-field of premium priced images that you can't sort by and istock have made it clear that there will be filtering/ordering features to allow sort by price. its a real shame, with all the keywords disambiguated the results should be excellent, and indeed are better than most if it were not for the various ill motived annoyances.

e.g. try a search between shutterstock and istock for "camera book" (i.e. a photo of a book and camera to emote learning or books about cameras etc) at time or writing on SS all you get is a page after page of books with not a photo with a camera in sight, istockphoto at least does show me a photo of a camera sitting on an open book - perfect!

It's only when you use search in earnest that you really see problems arise. Personally iI've stopped buying from IS long ago, SS is only acceptable if you are tied to that subscription otherwise it would be very temptng to go somewhere else, searching images is not easy

Santhosh's picture

Istock files acceptance

Santhosh (not verified) on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 16:19
I recently joined istock, and I am also dissappointed with their rejection ratio, upload cap, disambiguation needs and review time. Nowadays I am putting a fewer keywords to lessen the upload harassment. But I may not stop uploading there.. I hope they will change things soon for better.
Steve Gibson's picture

istock change

Steve Gibson on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 22:28

istock will change when they have to - but that's not guaranteed. This is only my opinion, but from external appearances istock seems partially paralyzed by what seems like an internal morass of 'big business'. They will either change or suffer some mortification at Getty's hands. No company is too large to fail and the larger they are and the less in touch with customers and contributors they get more likely that is. Once trust has been lost (for many that is already the case) then it's very hard to win back.

BUT... (isn't there always one) the large contributors with bargaining power to create bulk image submissions, bargain for higher royalties etc. can more than supply istock with 'most' of it's fresh image needs, meaning 'they can do this'.

It's interesting to hear this from a newbie(if you are?), most experienced microstockers, tho perhaps upset at times, look at their income from istock and, perhaps begrudgingly continue uploading; things are always changing and falling istock incomes might mean a revaluation for many. For me its the little things that annoy, a seemingly 'well controlled' amount of free speech in the istock forums (bans, locked threads etc) troubles me deeply - and would from any business.


Add new comment

Popular content